Dealing With Iran

Triggered by this post, I received the following e-mail from one of my sons (edited slightly):

Dad -

I am confused on your April 21st entry on the Iran nuclear weapon situation. What do you mean by deterrence? . . . Are you talking about containing Iran by convincing it that we could obliterate it in retaliation? Or is it that we would cut off economic, diplomatic or human relations in general? Overall, at this point, what threat could possibly be big enough to deter a country that just does not care what the rest of the world does or thinks? Moreover, why should they care so much when our president completely ignores Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's attempts at trying to solve the problem? I understand that what he said in his letter might not be "proposals for resolving the confrontation over Iran's nuclear ambition," but the fact that our government completely snubbed Ahmadinejad's probably serious attempts to solve a global problem in the way he sees best, seems to me to be another weapon in the global "Arrogant American" arsenal. And really, when we have a situation like the Iranian nuclear crisis that seems to be at the unsolvable point, having people think that we are intent on building relationships and working collaboratively with respect and a bit of humility, would be key. I am not talking about fostering "relativism run amok" I just want us to at least respect what the man has to say and not throw it out.

So I guess I have two questions: what do you mean by deterrence, and what do you think of Ahmadinejad's letter?

Jon

On the deterrence question, you have it right. I am talking about convincing Iran that if they ever used a nuclear weapon -- or provided one to others to use -- against us or an ally of ours, we would take them down as surely a night follows day. That's not necessarily to say that we would nuke them in return. We might be able to do what we need to do in that regard with more conventional forces. But, deterrence is premised on convincing the other side that any use of nuclear weapons would be suicide.

The question you ask about this -- "what threat could possibly be big enough to deter a country that just does not care what the rest of the world does or thinks?" -- is exactly the one that makes the prospect of Iran getting a nuclear capability so scary. For deterrence to work requires a rational actor on the other side, and there is room for doubt that the Iranian leadership is rational. How can one be certain that devotees of suicide bombings would not be willing to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands of their own citizens in the cause of jihad? These people simply do not think the way we do. For them, death in the service of their religion is glorious. How can such people be deterred?

And, maybe that is your point. We can't prevent them from getting a bomb diplomatically, a preventative war is unthinkable and probably won't work anyway, and we can't deter them once they get it, so what's the solution? Shouldn't we try rapprochement? After all, one doesn't nuke one's friends, so maybe the way to deal with an Iranian bomb is to make Iran our friend.

Which, of course, leads into the second question you ask: "What do you think of Ahmadinejad's letter?" Can't it be seen as a "serious attempt to solve a global problem in the way he sees best?" Shouldn't we do more than just blow him off? In the words of the 1975 song: "Why can't we be friends?"

Well, I think there are a couple reasons. One, at least, is that they don't want us to be their friend. I think there is considerable truth to the oft-expressed notion that the mullahs and the Ahmadinejads that currently run Iran NEED a "Great Satan," in much the same way that Bush NEEDS the "war on terror." It is the great bogeyman that allows them to maintain and enhance their powers, to keep an otherwise restive populace in line. If I am right about this, efforts to become friends with Iran would end up making the appeasement analogy valid: even if we did everything Ahmadinejad's letter asks, if would not be enough. Nothing would ever be enough.

Then, there are the more concrete issues. Ahmadinejad's letter makes clear that the price of friendship with Iran, even if it were possible, would be pretty high. To take but one example, we would need, first and foremost, not just to abandon Israel, but to assist in its destruction as a state. I often wish that Israel had never happened. But, it is too late for that now. And I, for one, am not willing to countenance the destruction of Israel in order to become friends with Iran.

But it all goes, I think, a lot deeper than this. Consider the closing paragraphs of Ahmadinejad's letter:

Liberalism and Western-style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems.

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point -- that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: "Do you not want to join them?"

Mr. President,

Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.

Here, finally, is the real Ahmadinejad. It is not really our foreign policy he hates. His beef is with who we are, how we live, what we believe. It is not our policies or actions he hates, it is our culture and civilization. We are, to him (and his ilk), the "Great Tempter," luring people into a corrupt, degraded, depraved, licentious and immoral lifestyle. What they resent most of all is the relentless allure western civilization holds for their own people. He (they) will not be satisfied until we too reject the "failed" teachings of liberalism (read freedom) and accept that only "faith in God and the teachings of the prophets" will allow people to "conquer their problems." Keep in mind that the "God" in which he insists we have faith and the "teachings of the prophets" to which he enjoins us to adhere and not the same "God" and "teachings" in which Christians and Jews currently believe. We would, of course, need to recognize that the Koran and Islam represent the "final truth." But to me, that is not actually the worst part. The worst part is the overtly theocratic manifesto. The flavor of the religion is not what is important to me. What is important to me is the rejection of liberalism. I am not willing to try to come to an accommodation with someone whose core goal is to get us to discard everything I believe in.

My sense: These guys are really and truly dangerous. I would no more give them a nuke than I would give one to Pat Robertson. The great scourge of our time is "true belief." True belief coupled with nukes is a very, very scary proposition.

All of this is not to say that we should not pursue rapprochement. I think the Bush administration refusal to have direct talks with Iran is silly. But as we try to work our way through this issue, we have to recognize that these guys are unlike anything we have ever had to deal with before. And we have to recognize that Ahmadinejad's letter is a lie: it is not our policies or our actions he despises. It is us.